Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Disciplinary Board v. Kirschner

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 2011No. Nos. 20100250, 20100251PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

[¶ 1] Attorney William Kirschner objects to a report of a hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommending he be suspended from the practice of law for thirty days for violating N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) and 3.5(d) and he pay $3,659.36 in costs of the disciplinary proceeding. We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence Kirschner violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) and 3.5(d), and we reprimand Kirschner for his misconduct and order him to pay costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

I

[¶ 2] Kirschner was admitted to practice law in North Dakota in December 1980. Sometime before June…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-RiemersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  2. In Re Discipline of StuhffNevada Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-RiemersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. EllisNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989
  5. In Re Disciplinary Action Against AskewNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. HannNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State v. DyerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. StenslandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
  4. State v. UnruhNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
  5. State v. ZottnickNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API